What's New

Resources updated between Monday, August 14, 2006 and Sunday, August 20, 2006

August 18, 2006

Reporters Without Borders called today for the immediate release of cyber-dissident Habib Saleh after a court martial sentenced him to three years in prison at the end of a trial without due process in the west-central city of Homs on 16 August. He was arrested in May 2005 in Tartus, 130 km north of Damascus, and accused of spreading mendacious reports.

How terrorism wins at the UN. Start a war. Demand a ceasefire as soon as the other side strikes back. Stash your weapons among a civilian population for another day and plan your next war. UN response? We will sit and watch one more time. Here is a clear admission from the UN Deputy Secretary-General that the UN-sponsored international force will not disarm Hizbollah: "the role of this force is no large-scale disarmament of Hizbollah." The only involvement of the UN force in disarming Hizbollah, says Malloch-Brown: "when the Lebanese Government and Hizbollah have agreed to disarm, and, therefore, the challenges...are...small groups trying to smuggle in arms, or carry arms...when confronted by our troops and if they try to forcefully resist disarmament, then we will indeed employ force ourselves to disarm them."

The most frightening part of U.N. Security Council resolution 1701 on the Lebanon war is that the United States agreed to allow the U.N. to play a pivotal role in the battle of our age - between democracy and terrorism, freedom and bondage, dignity and intolerance.

Kofi Annan's wide grin, as he stood side-by-side with Secretary Rice on Friday, said it all. He won. But America and freedom's cause lost.

At exactly the moment the "reformed" U.N. Human Rights Council condemned Israel - and only Israel - for the third time in two months, America cut a deal with the same U.N. to pin down the arms of the state on the front lines of democracy's war.

Why is the America that guards the right of self-defense so dearly willing to deny it, in effect, to the state of Israel? Why would America permit the U.N., which has systematically sided with Arab and Islamic states in their war against the Jews for half a century, to play-act as even-handed peacemaker? Why did the administration believe that denying Israel a win over Iranian proxies this time mean America is more likely to win over their Iranian bosses next time?

Everything about this resolution is an assault on the shared values of America and Israel: labeling Israel's battle against Hezbollah partially "offensive"; failing to mention Iran and Syria - the states driving the war; designing a force for southern Lebanon incapable of disarming Hezbollah; suggesting territorial gains for Hezbollah's terror; signing a death warrant for the kidnapped Israeli soldiers by placing their release side-by-side with the release of Lebanese killers in Israeli jails.

So why did the administration sign on? The mistaken impression that the U.N. is a good place to make real friends and allies that will be there down the road; the erroneous belief that having the intolerant and the racist inside the tent is progress; the alleged lack of an alternative. These are a lot of very bad reasons for handing an international institution unable to define terrorism a central role in combating it.

The most frightening part of the U.N. Security Council resolution is that the United States agreed to allow the U.N. to play a pivotal role in the battle of our age - between democracy and terrorism, freedom and bondage, dignity and intolerance.

Kofi Annan's wide grin, as he stood side-by-side with Secretary Rice on Friday, said it all. He won. But America and freedom's cause lost.

At exactly the moment the "reformed" U.N. Human Rights Council condemned Israel - and only Israel - for the third time in two months, America cut a deal with the same U.N. to pin down the arms of the state on the front lines of democracy's war.

Why is the America that guards the right of self-defense so dearly willing to deny it, in effect, to the state of Israel? Why would America permit the U.N., which has systematically sided with Arab and Islamic states in their war against the Jews for half a century, to play-act as even-handed peacemaker? Why did the administration believe that denying Israel a win over Iranian proxies this time mean America is more likely to win over their Iranian bosses next time?